NBC: Liable for Libel?
Friday, October 12, 2012 at 7:29PM 
The very first thing that struck me as exceptionally odd in this George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin fiasco came almost immediately after the news broke that he had shot a teenage boy dead. It had nothing to do with whether he or the victim were black, white, brown, yellow or red. It had nothing to do with color at all. It was simply the fact that he got out of his vehicle with a loaded gun. He knew as soon as he slammed the door shut that he was entering a very dangerous territory; one that immediately compromised his own common sense and sanity. Given what I know today, I feel the same way.
Forget the recording with the dispatcher for a moment. Initially, I paid little attention to it. Whether Trayvon attacked him first or not was not that important to me because, as far as I was concerned, Zimmerman knew exactly what he was capable of doing with that gun when he steadied himself and sidled into the unknown. No one walks with a gun without understanding the possible consequences, and that Kel-Tec PF9 pistol empowered him. It enabled him to play police officer, judge, jury and executioner with all of the bravado of Paul Kersey, and that’s precisely what he did. Paul Kersey was the character played by Charles Bronson in the Death Wish movie franchise. Take away the weapon and George Zimmerman would never have moved stealthily into the darkness, confronting a fictional fear that was as frightful as the shadow he cast on that dreary Sunday night. There was no real danger lurking about; it was created by his need and strong passion to become some kind of legendary hero that haunted his soul for years. He had to prove to himself and others just who he was. To that end, he succeeded, but at a huge loss.
Trayvon Martin was a nobody in the sense that none of us are, but you cannot put a price tag on life. He was a typical teenager who would have spent his teen years in obscurity, like most other boys and girls his age — listening to the songs from Mac Miller’s Blue Slide Park and kickin’ to the rhythmic beats of Akon. His world was different from ours as adults and unless we are in step with the minds of today’s youth, we just don’t get it. Right on and out of sight were as out of sync to him as lunchin’ and tizzle are to us. Certainly, when Zimmerman was lunchin’ that night, Trayvon was in a tizzle. (See: Hip Hop Slang.)
Because of what George Zimmerman did on the night of February 26, Trayvon is classified as either a martyr or a gangsta, when all that really matters is that he should have been left the hell alone. Because of Zimmerman, this child will never walk in his father’s footsteps. He will never become what he aspired to be, whether his mind was made up or not. After all, he was still quite young. He was at an age when aspirations are supposed to run wild. Sadly, he was snuffed out by a thief in the night, whose only screams were for power and glory.
§
My thoughts on this matter have nothing to do with NBC or any other media organization. I think on my own two feet, thank you, and if racism ever crossed my mind because the victim was African-American and the perpetrator was not, I never jumped to that conclusion. Most certainly, had I, it would NOT have been because of something that appeared on the Today show. I’ve learned, like most people, that you cannot trust any one news source. Where the Wall Street Journal runs on the conservative side, for instance, the New York Times is at the opposite end of the spectrum; and since the advent of reporting on newsworthy events, from thousands of years ago, opinions have been an integral part. It’s the nature of the beast. Who remembers the tears flowing from Walter Cronkite’s eyes as he announced the death of JFK on live television? Who could possibly be neutral on the day the Twin Towers fell? As objective as media are supposed to be, they are not, and the only advice I can proffer is to consider all options; listen to every side, considering that all sources are multi-faceted and not always reliable. Remember when WFTV reported that George and Cindy Anthony inked a book deal with Simon and Schuster? Did you ever read that book? Was the story ever rescinded?
This leads me to whether or not NBC should be held accountable for a story that skewed the events of the night of February 26. Quietly, I will tell you that skews and news are pretty much interchangeable these days, but in this case, the report that originated at an NBC affiliate station in Miami, WTVJ, before it aired on the Today show, ran perpendicular to the actual event, where Zimmerman purportedly said:
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
The New York Post reported a slightly different version on the NBC coverage:
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.”
The actual transcript of the conversation between Zimmerman and the Seminole County emergency dispatcher clarified the error. Zimmerman did not say it like it was reported:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
I will agree that the televised segment made George Zimmerman look like a racist because it appeared that he pointed out Trayvon’s color without being prompted, and that’s simply not true. However, does it rise to the level that warrants a lawsuit and monetary settlement?
I’m not here to defend Zimmerman, but I’m not going to condemn him, either; certainly not on this one. Why? Because I have experience in this field and I can genuinely empathize with him. NBC clearly did him an injustice. The network does, however, have more going for it than meets the press, so to speak. For one thing, did George Zimmerman have a “good” name at the time of the report? While the incident happened over three weeks prior, the news of the event actually broke over a week before the NBC story aired. By then, Zimmerman’s name was already festering, and rumors of racism had already abounded.
§
Many of you are aware of what happened to me during the Casey Anthony case — that I was attacked ferociously and voraciously by a fringe element that labeled me as gay, with AIDS, an alcoholic with DUI convictions, and a convicted felon. Convicted of what felonies, I do not know, but the list didn’t end there, nor did it end with me. My friends and family were insulted and accused of crimes, as well. Names and addresses were published. Online documents, such as tax records, were altered. My parents were supposedly card carrying gay communists with AIDS. Several of my e-mail accounts were hacked. I saw counterfeit documents with my own eyes, so I completely understand why Trayvon’s family shut down his social sites.
I went to the police with what I thought was hardcore evidence on my computer. Granted, it’s not easy to identify creeps that call themselves “DEAD DAVE” and other anonymous names, but they can be found. That’s what computer crimes units are for. While it went nowhere, I also contacted a defamation attorney who helped me tremendously. Ultimately, between the two resources, I gathered comprehensive knowledge of what constitutes libel and what can legally be done about it.
First of all, here’s a quick primer. If it is written, it’s libel. If it is spoken, it’s slander. Both are considered defamation. In NBC’s case, it could be all of the above because it was seen, read, and heard. The problem is, it’s tough to prove and the laws in the United States make it a very difficult nut to crack.
In my case, there was a genuine malicious design. The objective of those people was to destroy me, physically and emotionally. They wanted me dead and said so. That’s what trolls do. In NBC’s case, there was no such intent. Was there bias? Yes. Or maybe no. It depends on which side of the fence you’re on. The media are supposed to remain truthful, but we know that, in today’s world, it’s far from reality; where even reality shows are well-choreographed. While Zimmerman’s supporters will tell you NBC’s report was so slanted against him it was sickening, Trayvon’s people will tell you the complete opposite. NBC will tell you it was a matter of time constraints — editing a story to fit in a defined time slot.
While my trolls wanted me dead, I had no direct threats. No one said they were going to kill me and without any real menace, veiled or otherwise, law enforcement was powerless to act. That’s when I decided to contact a defamation attorney. While I had no money to mount any sort of lawsuit, the attorney did tell me he would freely advise me if I found a local attorney to take on my case. I never did pursue that venue, but he continued to help. One of the key aspects of proving libel deals with search engine standings. A lot hinges on how search terms stack up in the hierarchy, and engines differ in their results. If you do a search for “marinade dave”, how long do you have to scroll before something nefarious shows up? The higher the defamation in the pecking order, the more of a case you may have. Still, in my situation, I couldn’t go after any one person or even a group because no such entity existed. There was no structured organization; no corporation and no headquarters. In Zimmerman’s case, there’s NBC.
So what does Zimmerman have stacked in his favor? Not much, really. When the news broke, he automatically became a public figure. Actually, it began the moment he squeezed the trigger, whether he knew it or not, and just because it wasn’t reported right away, which it was, locally, he was no longer a private citizen. While I was merely a bit player in the Casey Anthony case, he became the star attraction; the center ring in a vast media circus. While media outlets could have looked at me as a culprit in my situation, they chose not to. In Zimmerman’s case, he is either guilty or he’s not, and there’s no in between. I think we’ve already established that the media is not always fair and impartial, and to be frank, there’s no law that forces them to be.
According to The Florida Bar, the “mere fact that a person does not like the way an article portrays him does not entitle him to damages. Rather, a defamatory communication, in its classic definition, is one that tends to hold a person up to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or causes him to be shunned or avoided by others.”
If people are shunning Zimmerman, could it be because of his own doing, not NBC’s?
In Florida law, there’s also the element of substantial proof:
While “truth is a defense” to a claim of defamation, Florida common law has taken that notion slightly further by permitting publishers of allegedly false statements to show those statements are “substantially true” or that portions that are untrue are so insignificant that a typical reader neither would realize the difference nor draw a different conclusion about the plaintiff if the false statements had not been included. In determining, then, whether an article is libelous, Florida courts review the article as if the allegedly false statements had been omitted. If the article purged of the error would not affect the mind of the reader differently, the article is not libelous. This test allows a defendant to demonstrate the general truth of the report, even though some portions may contain inaccuracies.
If we remove the NBC report from what we know to date, would it change our minds about George Zimmerman? Did the report motivate anyone (or enough people) to turn against him by altering their opinion (at that time) regarding whether or not he was a racist, and what kind of adverse effect could it have on his future? Who or what is more to blame, NBC or George himself?
It’s very difficult to prove libel. It’s very expensive, too. Who or what is prompting the defense (or George) to file a suit? Robert, Jr.? Where will the money come from? Because this would be a civil matter, how would his criminal defense attorneys fit into the equation? Zimmerman would be up against a huge corporation, so, unless he is hoping for a quick out of court settlement, what kind of risk is he willing to take considering his odds of winning or losing?
I understand that this situation is far removed from what I went through, but in the case of media, there are issues concerning time constraints that would work in their favor. I question how difficult it would be to prove that the network set out to destroy George Zimmerman’s reputation. One other thing to take into consideration is the competitive nature of an industry where advertising revenue is based on ratings. Scoops are what count. Yes, news outlets should strive for the truth, but tell me honestly, aren’t shocking stories what we really want ? Aren’t they called headlines?
I have one more question that I’d like to address, and this one goes to George Zimmerman’s most ardent supporters. It deals with the goose and the gander. If NBC should be held responsible for destroying his “good” name, who should be held accountable for the horrible smear campaign against Trayvon Martin? What Website(s) wrote: “TRAYVON MARTIN WAS A DRUG DEALER” and “A YEAR OF DRUG USE CULMINATES IN PREDICTABLE VIOLENCE…” with nothing to legally substantiate the claims? Do they fit the description of defamation?
Incidentally, George Zimmerman was on drugs, and that’s the truth. You can’t sue me. Whether he took them that day is something else, but why not try Googling “trayvon martin was a drug dealer” and see what you get on the first page? Hmm… Could that be a lawsuit just waiting to happen?
Cross posted on the Daily Kos
Dave Knechel | tagged Akon, Charles Bronson, Death Wish, Defamation, Hip Hop, Libel, Mac Miller, Paul Kersey, Slander, Walter Cronkite | in Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, George Zimmerman, Kel Tec PF 9, Kel-Tec PF-9, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Mark O'Mara, Slimm v. Zimm, Trayvon Martin, Zimm v. Slimm, Zimmerman, marinadedave | Share Article 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (123)
At the same time, I do not believe O'Mara had (or has) anything to do with the refutree site today, nor does he endorse the antics of his client's family and friends that take to the airwaves and that specific blog. None of those people help his cause at all.
This, specifically, is what opens the door to criticism:
"... for those who feel Mr. Zimmerman was justified in his actions, for those who feel they would do the same if they were in Mr. Zimmerman's shoes..."
I totally disagree with his opinion and I am going to say so.
Dave If that comment above was meant for me, I am sorry. I just did not understand why it suddenly got very cold in here. No one had mentioned O'Mara today.
I think I understand the Teflon reference. Not to long ago Judge Lester had his turn. For just being honest I might add. jmo
Dave ~~who is attacking another contributor here? I was told that I was free to disagree with the opinions of others. So why threaten to close this thread down? If my presence upsets anyone here, please let me know. It is quite apparent that I do not have the liberty to voice my own opinions freely. If I am required to agree with everything and sugar coat then this is no place for me.
I did not post a link to the site because it was giving exposure to some of the defamatory remarks of the treenuts. I was well aware that the site was not a Treenut blog or anyone who supports them.
I made a blanket statement about personal attacks. That is all. No one in particular. Everyone in general.
Snoopy, you are always free to disagree with people, but at the same time, everyone has an opinion. You can disagree with that opinion, but you can't tell people that they have no right to voice that opinion. In the case of Mark O'Mara, people are going to be opinionated and that's all there is to it. If you think he's a great guy, then say so. If others want to say he's not, then they have that right, too. What I would never tell anyone is that they are wrong for denigrating the guy. He's in the big leagues and this is the way it plays out. He knew it going in, too.
O'Mara stated during a press conference that he has two full-time employees reading blogs. He went as far as saying he has gotten great tips from those blogs, so keep them coming guys. This is at the same time his letter appeared on the tree blog. O'Mara is a magnet now, and that's all there is to it. Believe me, when the State opens their trap, I will be right there, and if people want to complain, I will let them. At the gun conference, I heard some things about one of the prosecutors, and if (and when) the time is right, I may let some of that info slip. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, but at the moment, the State is saying nothing. O'Mara, West, the Zimmermans and George's friends are doing all of the talking, and they are fueling the whole thing. I refuse to let any of them off the hook, but the Zimmermans aren't worth discussing. They are nutty in my opinion. Not O'Mara, and that makes him a legitimate target, one way or the other.
Dave~~I did not tell anyone they could not voice their opinion about O'Mara. I gave my opinion on how I felt about others putting O'Mara down. As you can see by the comments, I am not welcome here by anyone other than you who has asked me to participate. I have played devil's advocate to generate comments in here and dealt with the flack that went along with it. It just seems that I cannot win. Not once have I stated that I think Zimmerman is innocent and have even stated that I do not think he will win when it comes to the self-defense immunity. I do not have O'Mara on a pedestal no more than I ever had Bill Sheaffer on a pedestal or that other blog owner where I participated for a brief time. I do like to see attorneys be able to defend a client as long as they work within the letter of the law.
You may recall that during a time when you were being persecuted, I was accused of having you , Dave, on a pedestal at a time when you needed supporters. I fought tooth and nail against those accusing you of things that were unfounded and untrue, I have always tried to stand up for the underdog. Would you believe that by constantly ridiculing Zimmerman, he is going to gain supporters out of sympathy and not because they think he acted in self-defense?
I have lost count in how many times that I have tried discussing this particular case and it always ends up the same way. The time has come to realize that the clique who are regulars here will never accept me and I am not about to force myself on anyone.
Michelle said it got cold in here today. I can assure her and all of you that as I make my exit, the heat will be turned back on. Snoopy
There is no doubt that the discussion over Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman is heated at times. This means that each person deeply involved, meaning defendant and attorneys, is going to get trampled by the public. On my blog, no one is calling O'Mara any insulting names. No one is questioning his masculinity or anything else, but he is a target for all sorts of fodder; good and bad.
I still maintain that he's a smart attorney and a good guy, but I do have problems with some of his calls. For instance, he's a criminal defense attorney, not a carnival barker, so when he begs for money, he's not doing his office any favors. It's not a question about whether he did it today or not. The fact remains, he did it.
I know how much you supported me during the Anthony mess, and I, for one, would never allow it to get messy like that in here - not with Mark or anyone else. But at the same time, are you looking at the entire blogosphere as a whole and taking it out here? As far as I'm concerned, there is limited ridicule on this blog and most people know how I feel about it. If it gets out of control, I say something, but I am not oblivious to the emotions this case elicits. People are going to react and, unfortunately, it is the way it is.
I will not allow racism on this blog. I will never accuse someone of being a racist for disagreeing with me. If people have good things to say about George, then say it, but most of them won't. You know why? Because they are intolerant of the other side. So can the Trayvonites be, but not here. I like to think of myself as being more fair than most, but I cannot take the rap for what every blog is saying about George and his attorneys. I will tell you it is obvious which side of the fence I am sitting on, and I don't hide it. However, I do not shut anyone off as long as commenters are polite.
You are free to comment here. I have never shut you off and I never will. When it gets too hot or too cold in here, then it's time to walk away and take deep breaths. That's all, and it refers to all of us, including me. Then come back and jump in. We are all hot and cold at times, and the best thing would be if we recognize it when it comes. No one needs to make an exit, and I never ask for one.
Well dang Snoopy why are you blaming me? If you read the comments from this morning everything had been fine. Then that comment about Mr O'Mara came in and everyone got upset.
I know bad things happened before with the Anthony case, but I thought everyone here was friends. Opinionated but friends. I have been saying for months my name is Michelle... Falls on deaf ears. It hurts my feelings but I want to learn about the law and I want to be tougher so I am sticking it out.
No one wants you to leave! No one asked you to go!
Can I give you my opinion? Be true to yourself- if you support Mr Zimmerman support him. When I first started commenting for my Mom you sat on the fence with a little lean Mr Zimmerman's way. Then I think you tried to support Trayvon because those screams are horrible and you know grown men do not scream like that. But deep down you believe Mr Zimmerman. Therefore we are all secretly on your nerves because we won't shut up about Trayvon.
Now I am not very good at figuring (no offense) old people out so that up there is a little honesty mixed with a little humor. You do what you think is best but I in no way meant to run you off. When you are not mad at me I like to read your thoughts. When you are mad at me, you scare me. It is not everyday that I make people mad so I'm not sure what to do to fix it.
BBL time to walk Gazes.
TO EVERYONE:
Here's the deal from now on. You write an insulting comment or one that I deem to be for no other reason than to start a fight, your comment will be removed. Let that be a warning. Second time, same thing. Third time, you're out and that's it. No explanation; no more warnings.
This is my blog and no one else's. REMEMBER THAT. I want a free flowing dialog and any interference will not be tolerated.
Dave. Stay true to yourself. You have a great blog and great contributors. All will be well my friend.
Orlando Sentinel | October 17, 2012 | George Zimmerman murder trial set for June 10
Quoted and Snipped:
This morning, circuit Judge Debra Nelson set Zimmerman’s trial for June 10.
Prosecutors agreed with Shellie Zimmerman’s lawyer to delay the next hearing in her case until Dec. 12. No trial date was set in that case.
She [Judge Nelson] noted that she is set to be reassigned to civil and divorce cases in January, but said she will keep the [George Zimmerman] case.
There is another hearing in his case Friday.
OK I've always believed there is no such thing as a dumb question,so here goes. With respect I ask when did it become OK to ask for donations for a defense? I personally find this offense. After the lies from Zimmerman about the money he received.
"For those who have given in the past, for those who have thought about giving, for those who feel Mr. Zimmerman was justified in his actions, for those who feel they would do the same if they were in Mr. Zimmerman's shoes, for those that think Mr. Zimmerman has been treated unfairly by the media, for those who feel Mr. Zimmerman has been falsely accused as a racist, for those who feel this case is an affront to their constitutional rights -- now is the time to show your support."
I also find it difficult to believe that any clear thinking person could think Zimmerman was in the right about anything he did,has done or said about or since that terrible night.
JMHO of course.
Dear Dave
Here's the deal from now on. You write an insulting comment or one that I deem to be for no other reason than to start a fight, your comment will be removed. Let that be a warning. Second time, same thing. Third time, you're out and that's it. No explanation; no more warnings.
This is my blog and no one else's. REMEMBER THAT. I want a free flowing dialog and any interference will not be tolerated.
I'm sure I speak for most when I say this is really a great blog,intelligent,educational and sometimes humorous. It is always well written and fair. Three chances would be two more than I would allow if this were my blog.
I'm in awe of you.
OK now...Soooo we have a trial date...Wouldn't you know that it WOULD be set at a time that it could extend into the 4th of July Holiday??? Sure hope that the jurors won't be chomping at the bit to get to their holiday festivities, if that does happen...I wan't this trial outcome to be a well thought out decision and not like a spur of the moment thing that occurred in the CA case...We all know that the Pinellas Twelve were weary of being sequestered and just wanted to be with family and friends over the Fourth...(At least that is my opinion)...
[That's a very interesting point, Estee. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I have a feeling the trial will start a little later than June 10, and I don't know if the jury wil have to be squestered or not. Excellent thought and something to keep in mind, for sure! Thank you.
I will agree that the televised segment made George Zimmerman look like a racist because it appeared that he pointed out Trayvon’s color without being prompted, and that’s simply not true. However, does it rise to the level that warrants a lawsuit and monetary settlement?
Um, yes Dave, it really does. If that was done to you and it aired all over the world where it made you appear to be racist and have the black panthers calling for your head, I am pretty sure you would sue as would any normal rational thinking human being. Censoring someone to fuel a race war is scum level that most people dont condone. Duh.
[Um, Britt... let's wait and see how it plays out in court, duh. If it were done to me, duh, yeah, duh, but it would depend on who or what did it. Person-to-person stands a much better chance than going after a media corporation that will use time constraints as an excuse. I never said I was against George on this one; I just don't think it's an easy task. Duh.]
Britt: The thing about that is, I am one that never heard an airing of that particular broadcast. I can't blame my opinon on that at all. : - )
Due you suppose Georgie ran because the Black Panther's were, quote: 'calling for his head'; or because he was tipped off that the 911 witness call where the screams of Trayvon Martin are heard, was being released to the public?
What do you make of Zimmerman's brother out on a media tour always managing to bring race into the equation? Evening repeating false statements that Trayvon's knuckles were bruised. Do you think he is hoping to taint the jury pool?
Personally, it looks to me like it is Zimmerman's side that is fueling the race war. jmo
Estee: Yes, we have a trial date now. And even this from the same link: quote: "The "self-defense immunity hearing [is] likely to be requested for April or May," the tweet said."
I thought the judge made an interesting statement, too, when she, quote: noted that she is set to be reassigned to civil and divorce cases in January, but said she will keep the [George Zimmerman] case."
I guess there won't be much use for a, quote: ”senior judge' to manage discovery.”
Nan Since you seem to have every document known to mankind at your fingertips, I am curious if you have one from Mr Zimmerman's best friend? I believe he said something to the effect the night of the shooting Mr Zimmerman came to stay with him. So really Mr Zimmerman ran prematurely, imo. To claim he feared for his life because of NBC is kind of foolish. What scared him enough to not return home after he followed, skipped (his words) and then ultimately shot and killed Trayvon?
I just do not know how he can use fear as an excuse because he started running within hours of the shooting. Maybe one of you know something I don't know.
Oh and the other thing the Dispatcher did ask OK, and this guy is he white, black or Hispanic? Mr Zimmerman he looks black. Then unprompted by the Dispatcher Mr Zimmerman says He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male. This took place after what they discussed the clothes the "suspect" had on, discussing him walking around the area looking at all the houses, Trayvon staring at Mr Zimmerman and the Club House location.
So he did do it unprompted just not the way the clip ran from NBC. Does this mean anything, doubt it. I just find it interesting he is complaining that NBC did it, when later in the call he DID do it unprompted. I am sure it has to do with the goose and gander thing though. It is interesting someone who has a sketchy past at their own doing can sue for defamation? Do courts give discounted awards for less than honorable past? By the way I am asking because I really do not know how that works.
Michelle: Well, I do have a link, (PAGE 77), for a summary of his interview with the FDLE (and FBI.)
I am somewhat pleased to say that I never read his book. I believe it sold all of about 31 copies, (approximately.)
The summary of his interview does provide some information on your question. He states: quote: " ...accompanied S. Zimmerman to the Sanford Police Department (SPD) where they waited in the lobby until G. Zimmerman was released the next morning. After G. Zimmerman was released, [redacted] took the Zimmerman’s to his residence."
And, as always, you mention the most intriguing point.
I agree that it certainly appears that he went into hiding immediately following the shooting.
Some 'reports' indicate that Zimmerman did return to his residence that first night; so, it is a bit conflicting. I think the media can at least confirm that Georgie was not at his home for any length of time, afterwards. (They hung-out, and tried to reach him for comment; or a recent picture.)
It is interesting to contemplate whether he went into hiding prematurely, or whether he went into hiding because he knew he was guilty.
I wonder in the many other stand-your-ground cases, if those who seek immunity under the law disappear from the view of their neighbors and the general public within hours of the shooting?
It appears that he stayed at Osterman's until about the middle of March. At around that time, discovery shows he purchased a new gun and left for a destination he refered to as 'heaven' in his jail house phone calls. It was about a ten hour drive from Jacksonville, Florida.
On March 18, 2012, Axiom Amnesia posted the witness 911 call with the screams of Trayvon Martin heard in the background.
Michelle: It is such a shame that NBC did that, because it really wasn’t necessary. Three people lost their jobs just needlessly.
At about 4 seconds in of the NEN call and snipped:
Zimmerman: Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. Ah, it’s Retreat View Circle. Um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about.
Disptacher: Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
At about 58 seconds in of the NEN call: and snipped:
Zimmerman: Yeah. Now he’s coming towards me.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.
Dispatcher: Okay. How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He’s got a button on his shirt. Late teens.
He would go on to tell law enforcement, in a statement, that he was not scared at that point. And that he did not remember saying that Trayvon had a button on his shirt. DeeDee suggests that Trayvon was reporting to her that he was being followed by a person in a vehicle.
I am not sure of the answer to your questions about why someone with a sketchy past could sue for slander. I suppose it is because the court only looks at the incident before them--but it might make for some interesting testimony. : - ) jmo
I have noticed that there has been no lawsuit(s) filed yet against NBC. Just saying’.
I need to know if clipping something from another blog and putting it here is allowed?
[Normally, yes, but I think I have an idea of what you are talking about and I'd rather leave it alone. Consider the source. Thanks, though, I read it.]
Thanks Dave
I have considered the source and will leave it alone. I'll waste no more time on her pettiness.
[I think that's best, Tommy's Mom. The curtain drew back and exposed the actor.]
Dave - Yes, definitely, I was stunned to see what was behind that curtain.
Hope all is well.
[All is well, nemerinys. Thank you.
You never know. I was just as surprised, believe me.]